• partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    Ā·
    1 year ago

    Iā€™m not strictly arguing for federalization,

    Youā€™re replying to the thread where the OP wanted to nationalized SpaceX. I havenā€™t heard you say different. What are you proposing instead?

    but youā€™re arguing through whataboutism.

    No, Iā€™m citing precedent. Its extremely applicable because its the exact same industry, and even existed before SpaceX. .

    And SpaceX is an effective monopoly. Otherwise weā€™d use other launch services at least some significant amount.

    I donā€™t think you follow spaceflight very much if you hold this statement. Iā€™m assuming the ā€œweā€ youā€™re using here means US government launch.

    Hereā€™s US government launches that ULA did in 2022 and 2023 so far: 7 launches

    Delta IV Heavy | NROL-68 United Launch Alliance | USA Cape Canaveral, FL, USA June 22, 2023, 9:18 a.m.

    Delta IV Heavy | NROL-91 United Launch Alliance | USA Vandenberg SFB, CA, USA Sept. 24, 2022, 10:25 p.m.

    Atlas V 421 | SBIRS GEO-6 United Launch Alliance | USA Cape Canaveral, FL, USA Aug. 4, 2022, 10:29 a.m.

    Atlas V 541 | USSF-12 United Launch Alliance | USA Cape Canaveral, FL, USA July 1, 2022, 11:15 p.m.

    Atlas V N22 | CST-100 Starliner Orbital Flight Test 2 (OFT-2) United Launch Alliance | USA Cape Canaveral, FL, USA May 19, 2022, 6:54 p.m.

    Atlas V 541 | GOES-T United Launch Alliance | USA Cape Canaveral, FL, USA March 1, 2022, 9:38 p.m.

    Atlas V 511 | USSF-8 United Launch Alliance | USA Cape Canaveral, FL, USA Jan. 21, 2022, 7 p.m.

    source

    How is SpaceX am ā€œeffectiveā€ monopoly?

    • EvilBit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      Ā·
      1 year ago

      I was arguing a point, not a position.

      And SpaceX is literally the only means by which the US is able to send astronauts to the ISS currently. StarLink is a strategically critical service for military and probably other purposes.

      Precedent does not intrinsically imply merit.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        Ā·
        1 year ago

        And SpaceX is literally the only means by which the US is able to send astronauts to the ISS currently.

        Incorrect. The US can and does send astronauts on Soyuz. One of the astronauts currently on the ISS arrived on Soyuz. Additionally, the US chose this path irrespective of companies and vendors when they chose to stop flying the Space Shuttle. You canā€™t blame SpaceX for being successful and Boeing for being unsuccessful as justification to seize a private company.

        StarLink is a strategically critical service for military and probably other purposes.

        That is true state for hundreds of services providing by private companies to the US government. Why arenā€™t you arguing to seize or nationalize those?

        I was arguing a point, not a position.

        So this whole thing is an exercise in pedantry?

        • EvilBit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          Ā·
          1 year ago

          Look, you seem like a pretty intelligent person from your post history. Arguing a point instead of a position isnā€™t pedantry, itā€™s precision. You seem really worked up about this and I understand why, because forced federalization is a very dangerous and slippery slope. So itā€™s probably just best for us both to walk away. I donā€™t want to continue refuting you and I hope you have better things to do than to continue refuting me.

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            Ā·
            1 year ago

            You seem really worked up about this and I understand why, because forced federalization is a very dangerous and slippery slope.

            You and I are in complete agreement. Nationalizing a company would have dramatic and catestrophic effects on the free market society in the United States. I do NOT advocate for that. The closest I would come would be good usage of the Defense Production Act.

            I donā€™t want to continue refuting you and I hope you have better things to do than to continue refuting me.

            I appreciate the time youā€™ve taken in having the discussion. I hope you have a great day!